...build a nuclear aircraft carrier for the cost of four shuttle missions...
I'd dispute this. A shuttle mission costs around $250 million with all training and ground support. Last I heard, an aircraft carrier costs about $7 billion. I think that would come closer to 28 shuttle missions.
What is the military need for this? We've had two generations of bombers, the B1 and B2, that haven't seen combat and aren't going to, ever.
Both the B-1 and B-2 saw combat in the Balkans. The B-1 bombers were forward deployed, but the B-2s flew out of the US and did a 30-hour plus round trip mission.
The B-1 would have been used clear back in the Gulf War except that they were grounded at the time. I don't remember if that was the leaking fuel tanks or the engine falling off problem. The B-1 is an amazing plane, but it shows the worst of "design by committee" engineering.
The biggest reason the B-2 bombers cost so much is because so few were built. All the development costs are included in that price tag. Had more been built, the per aircraft cost would have been lower.
Don't forget that after NASA took over the DC-X project from the Air Force they then proceeded to crash the craft (due to human error) and then kill it off. There were obviously some skunks in the NASA works (not to be confused with the Lockheed-Martin Skunkworks, which actually does produce interesting things).
While I hate to see the military taking over this project, at least the X-33 has a chance to fly. I just hope they'll build a couple and lob them over the fence to NASA (who did spend $400 million, after all) when they're done.
Actually, NASA spent over $1 billion. Lockheed was in it for $400 million of their own money.
The X-34 (the real plane to be built based on the X-33)...
Sorry, but you are thinking of the VentureStar. The X-34 was a technology demonstrator. It got canned because of shifting design requirements that were running the price up too high.
It was far worse than that. His phone couldn't even lock onto a digital signal and just sat in analog roam mode. Mine was hooked, happy, and receiving calls. We tried starting them cold (off and back on) as well as lettting them sit. His handsest was just plain foobar.
Probably blockage from buildings. The digital signal doesn't carry nearly as far as analog, and can get blocked a lot easier. Only solution is more antennas.
My only experience in NYC was a couple of years ago and with a different handset (Qualcom). The only long converstation I had on the phone worked just fine. Then again, I was right next to Central Park, so there was a lot of open space for the signal to carry.
I'd keep on Sprint's @ss to get some more antennas up in your area.
It's possible you have a bad handset. I've used Sprint for years (since the Sprint Spectrum system started in DC) and have been very happy with it. I'm using a Samsung flip phone and get good coverage most places I travel to. However, someone I work with has the exact same phone and thought the coverage was bad. I put my phone right next to his and got a good signal. It turned out he had a bad handset.
About the only thing that will make me get rid of my current handset is when ones with Bluetooth capability finally hit the street at a reasonable price.
I fear the only thing this will really change is how fast Sprint can drain your wallet. Sprint already charges $10/month for their "wireless web" access. They'll probably charge even more (on top of airtime) for access to high-speed data.
I have Sprint PCS, and I love it, but all the tack on charges for new services makes them less than appealing. Only a miniscule percentage of people will ever use these facilities because of the cost.
My dream is still to see my cell phone act as a wide area gateway for my PDA and laptop using Bluetooth short range wireless tech. However, if it costs $1/minute, it won't be worth it.
Re:No pictures! - Found one!!
on
Mir 2
·
· Score: 2
In our media driven society, I'm amazed that space.com didn't include any pictures of the Mir2 design. Of course, if RSC couldn't afford to make any computer renderings, this might limit the media material available.
Success! I just ran across the same
article on MSNBC. However, this copy has a picture of Leonid Gorshkov with a projection of Mir 2 in the background.
In the picture, you see some elements that look like they are right out of Mir (1) and the Russian ISS modules. The biggest difference is a large truss holding the solar arrays which bears a strong resemblence to the truss which will be installed on ISS starting next year.
One thing on this truss that is not present on Mir or ISS is a couple of large dish antennas. I remember something like this being proposed for the old Freedom design (or one of it's revisions), but nothing like that is planned now. Also, I'm not sure if these are radar or communications.
Anyway, it looks like they could do a lot better by just supporting the ISS efforts. I wonder how much money they spent doing up these plans which could have gone towards construction of the modules they have already promised to ISS.
In our media driven society, I'm amazed that space.com didn't include any pictures of the Mir2 design. Of course, if RSC couldn't afford to make any computer renderings, this might limit the media material available.
Of my other space news sources, Spaceflight Now didn't have any information on this and NASA Watch is down this morning. Obviously, the news sources don't put a lot of stake in Mir2 ever getting beyond a few press briefings.
Russia can't even afford to meet it's ISS commitments. Every module of theirs beyond the Service Module (Zvezda) is delayed indefinitely. If Russia doesn't get moving on their Science Power Platform they may never be able to do meaningful science on their side of the station. This could also hamper their commercial asperations such as the Enterprise module.
Russia needs to get off their nationalistic bent and concentrate their efforts on what is there rather than trying to one-up the rest of the world.
Firewire chips are just as cheap as USB chips. If not cheaper because they will be in all consumer electronic devices...
Ah, this is the kind of logic I like to hear. If the price is competitive with USB, the motherboard manufacturers will be more likely to include it.
USB will have a problem with higher speeds because it is very processor intensive.
This is a very good argument. If USB 2.0 bogs the machine down at 480Mbps, there will be more reason to look towards FireWire for high-speed components.
I would love to see both interfaces on motherboards. My original statement was that the motherboard manufacturers are more than likely only going to include one. USB is more entrenched which makes it more likely to be the one to win out. If a strong merit is shown why both should be present, then our odds of seeing both are that much higher.
Except the obvious fact that this is an Intel technology that will probably require Intel silicon.
There is 3rd party silicon for USB 1.1 and I don't see any reason why this would change with 2.0. You will probably see USB 2.0 on Intel silicon first, but I'm sure we'll see it from other's soon. As an example, a few weeks ago I bought a 2-port USB 1.1 PCI card for $20. It was some no-name clone card company. Certainly not Intel silicon here.
firewire also has a clear upgrade path to 1600 Mbps
Great, now tell me what applications can actually use that much bandwidth. For that matter, show me a desktop computer that can process that much raw data. Also, for the low speed components like mice and keyboards, will the cost of FireWire interface circuitry ever be as cheap as USB 1.1 circuitry?
The biggest advantage I can see for FireWire is it's use of P2P verses S/M interfacing. Devices like PDAs and non-computer connected devices such as A/V equipment have a clear use for FireWire. I just don't know if that will be enough to overcome the momentum USB is likely to have on the desktop.
I really feel that USB 2.0 will be the dominant player in a few years. This won't be because of technical superiority as much as entrenchment and having a clear upgrade path.
As long as the cost of USB 2.0 PC interfaces comes down to close to that of USB 1.1, there will be no reason for motherboard manufacturers to not put the interface out there. The 2.0 ports can still talk to 1.1 hubs and peripherals, so in the beginning the end user will not see a difference.
Once enough machines are out there with USB 2.0 interfaces you will see some peripheral manufacturers start to migrate over as well. People will always have a mix of 1.1 and 2.0 components being that they will coexist on the system using the same string of cables. However, in time, 2.0 ports will be the only thing you find on new PC motherboards.
Now, think in terms of a motherboard manufacturer. This is a commodity market and cutting costs is essential. These motherboards already support USB 1.1. They know they will be replacing the 1.1 ports with 2.0 ports. These manufacturers are going to ask themselves, "why should I put two incompatable high speed interfaces on the board?" To take it to a further extreme, in a few years I expect to see many motherboards coming out without old fashioned serial and parallel ports. Even the keyboard and mouse ports could be endangered if the cost of the USB keyboard and mice come down.
Firewire is likely to be out there for a long time to come. It will probably dominate the A/V world being that USB was never targeted to that market. However, except in high-end situtations, I don't think we will ever see a lot of motherboards including direct FireWire support. It will remain an add-in card for most people.
Microsoft will eventually support USB 2.0. They are just going to wait until real hardware shows up. This is the same scenario they are taking with Bluetooth support. Intel or other hardware manufacturers will release add-on software for Windows to handle USB 2.0 until Microsoft integrates it into the OS. It has been done before and it will be done again.
It would come after repeated setbacks to design of a hypersonic craft. A $2.5-billion Reagan-era hypersonic program, based in Southern California, was scuttled.
The 80's era project referenced was the X-30 which was also known as the "NASP" or "National Aero-Space Plane". The idea was to have a plane that takes off, boosts to very high speed using SCRAM jets, and finally uses a small rocket boost to reach suborbital velocity. After a cruise above the atmosphere it would reenter to land. The quote that comes to mind is, "New York to Tokyo in two hours."
Unfortunately, like many gov't projects, it ran so far over budget that it was finally canceled. The high speed flight researchers have been trying to recover ever since. The new approach is to use small technology demonstrators to make incremental discoveries rather than putting all the eggs in one basket. Sadly, the gov't didn't learn with the X-33 project which had the same failing.
And Digianswer has announced that they will promote the creation on Bluetooth Drivers for Linux and I believe they announced that they plan to open their source code in the future.
Sorry to disagree here, but Digianswer appears to be more interesting in getting the open software community to help them develop a closed driver. This quote from the announcement makes this pretty clear:
"The source-code will, under no circumstances, be freely available."
I'll lay odds on the Axis stack being the standard interface for Linux with a mixture of open and closed hardware level drivers that bind to the bottom of it. There is already a USB driver out there and some support for various PC Card adapters.
The typical range would be something like 10-15 feet, not the 150 feet you can get out of 802.11B.
Actually, base station class devices such as LAN access points have a range up to 100' or 200' (sorry, can't remember which right now). These devices require more power than a handheld would provide, but will be used to bring point of presence service to larger areas. I imagine the convention floor was using devices of this level. The potential for too many people in too short of range goes up quite a bit. Still, I imagine it was more trouble with the 1.0 to 1.1 spec conversion than range and population issues.
Left to themselves, vendors are likely to come up with all sorts of imcompatible implementations (as they've already done). However, if Microsoft provides the de facto standard implementation, every vendor will write to that "standard".
This is very similar to how the TCP/IP interface under Windows evolved with WinSock. In the early days, each TCP/IP utilties vendor had their own IP stack. If you bought a 3rd party application, you had to check which stacks it supported. When WinSock came out, that all changed. Apps could be written for only one interface. However, this did kill off the various IP stacks. Probably not a great loss, but it is of note.
Bluetooth will likely have a similar evolution. The value-add will be in the higher level apps rather than the core protocol stack.
until there's atleast an x86 motherboard out there with a Bluetooth transceiver built into it!
Would you settle for a laptop? I believe Sony and at least one or two other companies have announced models that include integrated Bluetooth capability. I'll lay odds we will see PC motherboards with Bluetooth within a year.
That is the most profound, and appropriate, statement I've read on here today! People have to remember that different products have different aims. Look at all the promises made about IRDA a few years back and most of them can be applied to Bluetooth. IRDA is one technology that Bluetooth is likely to completely replace in a few years.
There have been a lot of these "poof" events lately. Product pages at both Intel and 3Com have gone away. Motorola still has a products page up, but it provides next to no information. The only idea I can offer up is that when these products were based on the 1.0 Bluetooth spec and were pulled to retool for the 1.1 spec.
Anyone who does have working links for Bluetooth products, please send them to me to be put on my Bluetooth on Linux page. Also, consider visiting the Bluetooth topsites list to keep Linux high on the links list.
On the other hand, if you are a printer maker you not only need to add bluetooth hardware, you also have to make your printer conform to the profile (or do so in one mode), which reduces your ability to make your product "different and better".
It is possible for a device to support more than one profile. In the case of a printer, in addition to the "printer" profile, the device could also support the "serial tunnel" (or whatever the proper name is) profile. Once this serial tunnel is established it will look like the printer is directly connected to the computer trying to print. With that, any advanced features can be taken care of.
Rather than being a limitation, the profiles act to give verstatility without as much overhead.
I haven't seen anything about IBM shipping a USB Bluetooth adapter, but they are shipping a PC Card (PCMCIA) adapter. There is information (and pricing) for it on CNet. I ran across this product during my searces for support of Bluetooth under Linux.
A quick hunt through IBM's website turns up the PC Card adapter under their wireless products section, but no mention of USB. My guess would be they don't have anything shipping yet.
It's a little early in the life cycle to be declaring Bluetooth dead and buried. The hardware is only just now starting to show up. Software is under active development. Even though Microsoft is sitting on their back side, other companies are developing Windows support for Bluetooth. There is also work underway to support Bluetooth under Linux. I've already seen reports of success connecting Linux and Windows machines using Bluetooth for file transfers.
Microsoft is not making a mistake in holding off in shipping Bluetooth enabled versions of their OS. They are making a mistake in not commiting openly to providing Bluetooth support as a service pack after the product ships and Bluetooth standards settle down. This can probably be written off as another marketing blunder.
There is a big difference between Bluetooth and Betamax. Bluetooth is an open standard. Sony wanted to collect a royalty of use of Betamax. If you had drawn a comparison between Fireware (with Apple) and Betamax it would have been more appropriate.
More resources on what Bluetooth is (and is not) is available from a Bluetooth topsites list which contains a few dozen links to Bluetooth sites.
Bluetooth also provides a higher level abstraction than 802.11. When printing over a standard network you have to know the model of printer at the other end. With Bluetooth it's possible to use a standard printing "profile". This keep you from having to carry 200 printer drivers on your PDA to handle any situation you walk into. Similar profiles exist for other environments such as file transfer and serial port tunneling.
For those wanting more information, I have a page on using Bluetooth with Linux. Also, you can get more information about Bluetooth in general at a Bluetooth topsites list that is available.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd dispute this. A shuttle mission costs around $250 million with all training and ground support. Last I heard, an aircraft carrier costs about $7 billion. I think that would come closer to 28 shuttle missions.
Both the B-1 and B-2 saw combat in the Balkans. The B-1 bombers were forward deployed, but the B-2s flew out of the US and did a 30-hour plus round trip mission.
The B-1 would have been used clear back in the Gulf War except that they were grounded at the time. I don't remember if that was the leaking fuel tanks or the engine falling off problem. The B-1 is an amazing plane, but it shows the worst of "design by committee" engineering.
The biggest reason the B-2 bombers cost so much is because so few were built. All the development costs are included in that price tag. Had more been built, the per aircraft cost would have been lower.
Don't forget that after NASA took over the DC-X project from the Air Force they then proceeded to crash the craft (due to human error) and then kill it off. There were obviously some skunks in the NASA works (not to be confused with the Lockheed-Martin Skunkworks, which actually does produce interesting things).
Actually, NASA spent over $1 billion. Lockheed was in it for $400 million of their own money.
Sorry, but you are thinking of the VentureStar. The X-34 was a technology demonstrator. It got canned because of shifting design requirements that were running the price up too high.
It was far worse than that. His phone couldn't even lock onto a digital signal and just sat in analog roam mode. Mine was hooked, happy, and receiving calls. We tried starting them cold (off and back on) as well as lettting them sit. His handsest was just plain foobar.
Probably blockage from buildings. The digital signal doesn't carry nearly as far as analog, and can get blocked a lot easier. Only solution is more antennas.
My only experience in NYC was a couple of years ago and with a different handset (Qualcom). The only long converstation I had on the phone worked just fine. Then again, I was right next to Central Park, so there was a lot of open space for the signal to carry.
I'd keep on Sprint's @ss to get some more antennas up in your area.
It's possible you have a bad handset. I've used Sprint for years (since the Sprint Spectrum system started in DC) and have been very happy with it. I'm using a Samsung flip phone and get good coverage most places I travel to. However, someone I work with has the exact same phone and thought the coverage was bad. I put my phone right next to his and got a good signal. It turned out he had a bad handset.
About the only thing that will make me get rid of my current handset is when ones with Bluetooth capability finally hit the street at a reasonable price.
I fear the only thing this will really change is how fast Sprint can drain your wallet. Sprint already charges $10/month for their "wireless web" access. They'll probably charge even more (on top of airtime) for access to high-speed data.
I have Sprint PCS, and I love it, but all the tack on charges for new services makes them less than appealing. Only a miniscule percentage of people will ever use these facilities because of the cost.
My dream is still to see my cell phone act as a wide area gateway for my PDA and laptop using Bluetooth short range wireless tech. However, if it costs $1/minute, it won't be worth it.
Success! I just ran across the same article on MSNBC. However, this copy has a picture of Leonid Gorshkov with a projection of Mir 2 in the background.
In the picture, you see some elements that look like they are right out of Mir (1) and the Russian ISS modules. The biggest difference is a large truss holding the solar arrays which bears a strong resemblence to the truss which will be installed on ISS starting next year.
One thing on this truss that is not present on Mir or ISS is a couple of large dish antennas. I remember something like this being proposed for the old Freedom design (or one of it's revisions), but nothing like that is planned now. Also, I'm not sure if these are radar or communications.
Anyway, it looks like they could do a lot better by just supporting the ISS efforts. I wonder how much money they spent doing up these plans which could have gone towards construction of the modules they have already promised to ISS.
In our media driven society, I'm amazed that space.com didn't include any pictures of the Mir2 design. Of course, if RSC couldn't afford to make any computer renderings, this might limit the media material available.
Of my other space news sources, Spaceflight Now didn't have any information on this and NASA Watch is down this morning. Obviously, the news sources don't put a lot of stake in Mir2 ever getting beyond a few press briefings.
Russia can't even afford to meet it's ISS commitments. Every module of theirs beyond the Service Module (Zvezda) is delayed indefinitely. If Russia doesn't get moving on their Science Power Platform they may never be able to do meaningful science on their side of the station. This could also hamper their commercial asperations such as the Enterprise module.
Russia needs to get off their nationalistic bent and concentrate their efforts on what is there rather than trying to one-up the rest of the world.
Ah, this is the kind of logic I like to hear. If the price is competitive with USB, the motherboard manufacturers will be more likely to include it.
This is a very good argument. If USB 2.0 bogs the machine down at 480Mbps, there will be more reason to look towards FireWire for high-speed components.
I would love to see both interfaces on motherboards. My original statement was that the motherboard manufacturers are more than likely only going to include one. USB is more entrenched which makes it more likely to be the one to win out. If a strong merit is shown why both should be present, then our odds of seeing both are that much higher.
There is 3rd party silicon for USB 1.1 and I don't see any reason why this would change with 2.0. You will probably see USB 2.0 on Intel silicon first, but I'm sure we'll see it from other's soon. As an example, a few weeks ago I bought a 2-port USB 1.1 PCI card for $20. It was some no-name clone card company. Certainly not Intel silicon here.
Great, now tell me what applications can actually use that much bandwidth. For that matter, show me a desktop computer that can process that much raw data. Also, for the low speed components like mice and keyboards, will the cost of FireWire interface circuitry ever be as cheap as USB 1.1 circuitry?
The biggest advantage I can see for FireWire is it's use of P2P verses S/M interfacing. Devices like PDAs and non-computer connected devices such as A/V equipment have a clear use for FireWire. I just don't know if that will be enough to overcome the momentum USB is likely to have on the desktop.
First, learn a little more about USB 2.0 here:
I really feel that USB 2.0 will be the dominant player in a few years. This won't be because of technical superiority as much as entrenchment and having a clear upgrade path.
As long as the cost of USB 2.0 PC interfaces comes down to close to that of USB 1.1, there will be no reason for motherboard manufacturers to not put the interface out there. The 2.0 ports can still talk to 1.1 hubs and peripherals, so in the beginning the end user will not see a difference.
Once enough machines are out there with USB 2.0 interfaces you will see some peripheral manufacturers start to migrate over as well. People will always have a mix of 1.1 and 2.0 components being that they will coexist on the system using the same string of cables. However, in time, 2.0 ports will be the only thing you find on new PC motherboards.
Now, think in terms of a motherboard manufacturer. This is a commodity market and cutting costs is essential. These motherboards already support USB 1.1. They know they will be replacing the 1.1 ports with 2.0 ports. These manufacturers are going to ask themselves, "why should I put two incompatable high speed interfaces on the board?" To take it to a further extreme, in a few years I expect to see many motherboards coming out without old fashioned serial and parallel ports. Even the keyboard and mouse ports could be endangered if the cost of the USB keyboard and mice come down.
Firewire is likely to be out there for a long time to come. It will probably dominate the A/V world being that USB was never targeted to that market. However, except in high-end situtations, I don't think we will ever see a lot of motherboards including direct FireWire support. It will remain an add-in card for most people.
Microsoft will eventually support USB 2.0. They are just going to wait until real hardware shows up. This is the same scenario they are taking with Bluetooth support. Intel or other hardware manufacturers will release add-on software for Windows to handle USB 2.0 until Microsoft integrates it into the OS. It has been done before and it will be done again.
The 80's era project referenced was the X-30 which was also known as the "NASP" or "National Aero-Space Plane". The idea was to have a plane that takes off, boosts to very high speed using SCRAM jets, and finally uses a small rocket boost to reach suborbital velocity. After a cruise above the atmosphere it would reenter to land. The quote that comes to mind is, "New York to Tokyo in two hours."
Unfortunately, like many gov't projects, it ran so far over budget that it was finally canceled. The high speed flight researchers have been trying to recover ever since. The new approach is to use small technology demonstrators to make incremental discoveries rather than putting all the eggs in one basket. Sadly, the gov't didn't learn with the X-33 project which had the same failing.
Sorry to disagree here, but Digianswer appears to be more interesting in getting the open software community to help them develop a closed driver. This quote from the announcement makes this pretty clear:
I'll lay odds on the Axis stack being the standard interface for Linux with a mixture of open and closed hardware level drivers that bind to the bottom of it. There is already a USB driver out there and some support for various PC Card adapters.
Obligatory plug: Information on Bluetooth under Linux and general Bluetooth information is available at the Bluetooth topsites list .
Actually, base station class devices such as LAN access points have a range up to 100' or 200' (sorry, can't remember which right now). These devices require more power than a handheld would provide, but will be used to bring point of presence service to larger areas. I imagine the convention floor was using devices of this level. The potential for too many people in too short of range goes up quite a bit. Still, I imagine it was more trouble with the 1.0 to 1.1 spec conversion than range and population issues.
Obligatory plug: Information on Bluetooth under Linux and general Bluetooth information is available at the Bluetooth topsites list .
This is very similar to how the TCP/IP interface under Windows evolved with WinSock. In the early days, each TCP/IP utilties vendor had their own IP stack. If you bought a 3rd party application, you had to check which stacks it supported. When WinSock came out, that all changed. Apps could be written for only one interface. However, this did kill off the various IP stacks. Probably not a great loss, but it is of note.
Bluetooth will likely have a similar evolution. The value-add will be in the higher level apps rather than the core protocol stack.
Obligatory plug: Information on Bluetooth under Linux and general Bluetooth information is available at the Bluetooth topsites list .
Would you settle for a laptop? I believe Sony and at least one or two other companies have announced models that include integrated Bluetooth capability. I'll lay odds we will see PC motherboards with Bluetooth within a year.
Obligatory plug: Information on Bluetooth under Linux and general Bluetooth information is available at the Bluetooth topsites list .
That is the most profound, and appropriate, statement I've read on here today! People have to remember that different products have different aims. Look at all the promises made about IRDA a few years back and most of them can be applied to Bluetooth. IRDA is one technology that Bluetooth is likely to completely replace in a few years.
There have been a lot of these "poof" events lately. Product pages at both Intel and 3Com have gone away. Motorola still has a products page up, but it provides next to no information. The only idea I can offer up is that when these products were based on the 1.0 Bluetooth spec and were pulled to retool for the 1.1 spec.
Anyone who does have working links for Bluetooth products, please send them to me to be put on my Bluetooth on Linux page. Also, consider visiting the Bluetooth topsites list to keep Linux high on the links list.
It is possible for a device to support more than one profile. In the case of a printer, in addition to the "printer" profile, the device could also support the "serial tunnel" (or whatever the proper name is) profile. Once this serial tunnel is established it will look like the printer is directly connected to the computer trying to print. With that, any advanced features can be taken care of.
Rather than being a limitation, the profiles act to give verstatility without as much overhead.
I haven't seen anything about IBM shipping a USB Bluetooth adapter, but they are shipping a PC Card (PCMCIA) adapter. There is information (and pricing) for it on CNet. I ran across this product during my searces for support of Bluetooth under Linux.
A quick hunt through IBM's website turns up the PC Card adapter under their wireless products section, but no mention of USB. My guess would be they don't have anything shipping yet.
It's a little early in the life cycle to be declaring Bluetooth dead and buried. The hardware is only just now starting to show up. Software is under active development. Even though Microsoft is sitting on their back side, other companies are developing Windows support for Bluetooth. There is also work underway to support Bluetooth under Linux. I've already seen reports of success connecting Linux and Windows machines using Bluetooth for file transfers.
Microsoft is not making a mistake in holding off in shipping Bluetooth enabled versions of their OS. They are making a mistake in not commiting openly to providing Bluetooth support as a service pack after the product ships and Bluetooth standards settle down. This can probably be written off as another marketing blunder.
There is a big difference between Bluetooth and Betamax. Bluetooth is an open standard. Sony wanted to collect a royalty of use of Betamax. If you had drawn a comparison between Fireware (with Apple) and Betamax it would have been more appropriate.
More resources on what Bluetooth is (and is not) is available from a Bluetooth topsites list which contains a few dozen links to Bluetooth sites.
Bluetooth also provides a higher level abstraction than 802.11. When printing over a standard network you have to know the model of printer at the other end. With Bluetooth it's possible to use a standard printing "profile". This keep you from having to carry 200 printer drivers on your PDA to handle any situation you walk into. Similar profiles exist for other environments such as file transfer and serial port tunneling.
For those wanting more information, I have a page on using Bluetooth with Linux. Also, you can get more information about Bluetooth in general at a Bluetooth topsites list that is available.